Why did God make pain so painful?

[OnceConvinced]

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

If you are a theist who believes the above like I did, then this thread is definitely for you and I'd really like to hear your opinions on this. If not, then this debate is not aimed at you. Of course anyone, even non-theists are welcome to tune in with their view on this topic. Just please do not try to argue that the above view is a false one. In this thread we are assuming that it is true... ie that God created pain as a protective mechanism for us. (and that God is real!)

Moving on to what I want to talk about...

My issue is with the intensity of the pain we experience in the above scenario... or similar ones. This is not just a slight deterrent to prevent you from touching something dangerous. This is a extremely intense pain we are talking about. Horrible pain inflicted upon us when we touch say a flame. What's worse is that even just touching it, we can be in real pain for some time after. Even just one touch can result in damage to our skin, even if it's minor and temporary.

Why is the pain so intense? Why does it need to be that horrible just to deter us from touching say a flame ever again? Couldn't the pain it cause be a little less sadistic?

Even farmers know that to keep their livestock fenced in that you only turn up the electricity so high on your electric fences. Just enough to give the animals a jolt so that it will deter them from ever touching the fence again. They know there is no need to turn the electricity up to a ridiculously high level so that the animal suffers more that what's necessary. Yet God seems to have turned the electricity right up for us humans.

So why does God turn up that pain to such a high level?

Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel?

A question that kind of encompasses these questions... Why did God make pain so painful?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 39 by OnceConvinced]

Let’s change the analogy then. Let’s say that the farmer created the cows. He created them in a lab or something. Will that make you feel better? It doesn’t take away the malevolence of setting the voltage so high on the electric fence, does it? In fact, we could argue it is even more malevolent, ie the farmer designed the cow to suffer pain when touching an electric fence.

At least this modified analogy would begin to approach an more accurate comparison. I would also need to presume that the farmer created electricity (raw) and also the mechanism for controlling voltage on the fence. Now with all of these assumptions, lets revisit your example.

Farmer creates cow (and includes a mechanism to allow the cow to feel pain)
Farmer creates farm, and places cow in the farm
Farmer creates a fence and places raw electricity in the fence
Farmer creates a mechanism to control the voltage in the fence so the cow does not feel severe pain.

In this example you are asserting the farmer is "better" than God because of the mechanism to control the voltage (raw electricity) which could severely injure or kill the cow. Because the farmer knew the cow could feel pain, he turned down the voltage in the fence.

Notice, even in this modified example, the voltage of raw electricity is not affected. Without the mechanism in the fence, the raw power to cause pain is still the same. This is the raw power of the heat of a flame which you are comparing. Raw electricity is dangerous, just like touching a raw fire is dangerous.

God creates cow (and includes a mechanism to allow the cow to feel pain)
God creates garden (Earth) , and places mankind in the garden
God creates a fence (fire or other protective mechanism) and places raw power in the fence
God includes a mechanism within humans to control the voltage/intensity in the fence so the human does not feel severe pain.

In the above scenario, the cow has no way of knowing in advance the fence is electrified. In the scenario with God, we humans have the ability to know that the fence is electrified and not experience any pain in the first place. We can be warned and instructed. Cows cannot. This is part of the criteria that makes us superior to cows.

Still no malevolence here. Just your desire to take a perspective to see malevolence and blame God. As you said, you take a perspective and then attempt to debate it.

And who designed them to be aquophobic? Who knitted them together in their mother’s womb so that they would be aquophobic?

But regardless, you can’t turn up the wetness of water. Nor can you turn down the wetness of water. Unlike pain which can be turned up or down.

I think you have forgotten elementary science. Gas, Liquid or solid are descriptions describing the turning up or down of the wetness of water.

Water as a liquid is wet. When the temperature is lowered, it becomes solid and is less wet. When water evaporates as gas it less wet. We can control the wetness of water just like we can control the voltage of electricity. God included a mechanism (human brain) to monitor and turn up or down the voltage/intensity.

You argue that your mechanism (mind) is slow and does not recognize when something is hot until it is too late. If you walk by a stove element that is turned on, you claim you are not able to decipher whether it is hot without touching it first. If you place your hand near it, the signals will take too long to reach your brain before you realize it is hot.

This is not true for most people, especially those who cook regularly. But I cannot dismiss your experience.

Oh come on! Are you serious? When you touch an element you have grabbed it before you even realise that there is heat there. By the time you feel the seering skin scorching heat you’ve already touched it firmly. It’s not a willful action. There is a delay before the brain realises there is pain.

If the element is already hot, I can feel the radiating heat before my hand reaches the
actual element. The closer my hand gets to touching the element, the more heat I can feel.

Neuroscience supports this claim.

Information travels at different speeds within different types of neurons (nerve cells). Signals can travel as slow as about 1 mph or as fast as about 268 mph.
Nerve cells can transmit 1,ooo nerve impulses per second.

http://virtuallabs.stanford.edu/tech/im ... U-Tech.pdf

We can even calculate a persons reaction time to external stimuli. Here is a common experiment done at secondary schools all over the US: https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime

In a majority of scenarios, human reaction takes fractions of a second. Is this too slow to realize that an element is hot.

Which are you describing as malevolent, the ability of humans to feel pain at any level, or the ability of humans to bypass the warning systems available?

Clearly you have never touched an electric fence. The pain is immediate. There is no time to draw away before the pain becomes agonising. Our reactions are not that sharp. They are not that fast. You electric shock does not start off soft and then become agonising. It’s a sudden shock of pain.

Elements are the same. You don’t grab an element and then have the chance to draw your hand away before the pain gets too intense.

Surely you’ve had a hot pan or dish on an oven and not realised it was hot? By the time your brain registers that agonising pain you’ve already gripped it solidly. You let go after you’ve felt the agonising pain.

Thankfully, I have not every touched an electric fence.

Elements are not the same as an electric fence. They actually have a safety feature built in to glow red so a person can have a visible warning signal not to touch them. Even without this change in color, the radiating heat is the greatest primary warning.

When I have touched a pot and did not realize it was hot, I did experience pain, but I would not categorize it as agonizing. It was sharp and intense, but the pain lasted a short time. I could place ice on it, and the pain was gone. Like the pain of a vaccination as a child. The pain is intense but only for a moment. Because the pain subsides so quickly, it is difficult for me to call that type of pain agonizing. Also, my brain would process the pain so quickly, fraction of a second, that I would not have gripped the pot solidly as you stated. In most cases, the pan was touched or grazed. It is difficult for a person to receive a severe burn (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree burn) by only touching a fire or heated object for a fraction of a second. Recall it only takes the brain a fraction of a second to register stimuli or pain. Burns result from either a decision to ignore this initial warning, or an inability to escape.

Seriously. This radiating heat you talk about does not work as slow as you claim. It’s certainly not that way with electric fences. The pain hits you immediately and gives you no chance to let go first.

You have not demonstrated how God creating humans and forces like fire or electricity are similar to an electric fence.

In your example, the farmer created the fence to protect or keep the cows in a specific area. How is God creating fire or electricity similar. The fence is distinct and separate from electricity. The fence is electrified with raw power, and then the voltage is controlled. Where is the parallel in your example of malevolence?

Is the pain from a burn a fence?

You have taken a perspective for the sake of argument that God created humans, pain and devices to inflict pain. What is the fence in your perspective? Where is the basis of this perspective?

Did you just make it up, or is it based on actual scripture?

That is not true. The human brain does not react that quickly. The pain must travel a certain distance to the brain before you feel it. But by then it’s too late to let go.

Speed of Signal Transmission
The different receptors propagate their signals along nerve fibres which differ in the speed at which they transmit action potentials. Nerve fibres associated with pain are often much slower than those associated with touch. The different nerve fibres are classified as:

Aα – The fastest nerve fibre (72-120ms-1)
Aβ – Fast (36-72ms-1)
Aδ – Small, slow, myelinated fibres associated with nociception and temperature (4-36ms-1)
C – Small, very slow, unmyelinated fibres associated with nociception (0.4-2.0ms-1)

http://vetsci.co.uk/2010/05/14/the-soma ... ry-system/

Notice that 2 miliseconds is considered the slowest our bodies can transmit the appropriate information to our brain.

Fast pain, like pricking yourself with a needle or touching a burning object, is mainly related to painful stimuli of the skin, mouth and anus.

It is transmitted by relatively thick nerve fibers, although this term is relative because they are still microscopically thin, with a diameter of two- to five-thousandth of a millimeter. These nerves are called A-delta fibers. Because of their relative thickness, they allow the pain stimulus to be transferred very fast (at a speed of 5 to 30 meters per second), hence the name. This allows the body to withdraw immediately from the painful and harmful stimulus in order to avoid further damage.

http://www.health24.com/Medical/Pain-Ma ... n-20120721

This would add about 0.1 - 0.6 miliseconds to the total time it would take you to feel pain and withdraw your hand. Max time of 2.6 miliseconds. This is still less than a fraction of a second.

Other links
https://books.google.com/books?id=cbWX_ ... on&f=false
https://backyardbrains.com/experiments/reactiontime
http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s2/chapter02.html

WHO IS TURNING UP THE VOLTAGE?

GOD OF COURSE! He is the one who determines how much pain these things inflict, whether your tolerance for pain is low or not.

Where do you find evidence to support this notion that God turned up the voltage. In the first example, the farmer did not create electricity or the cow. In your modified example the farmer created the cow, electricity and the fence. Raw electricity is still very dangerous and powerful. The turning up in your example is a function of the fence. I ask again, from your perspective what in creation is the voltage controlled fence?

[OnceConvinced]

God includes a mechanism within humans to control the voltage/intensity in the fence so the human does not feel severe pain.

No, this is wrong. The mechanism is not within the human. The mechanism is in the fence. It is the fence that has been turned up high. The fence is turned up so the human DOES feel severe pain. The brain does not control the fence or the electricity running through it.

In the above scenario, the cow has no way of knowing in advance the fence is electrified.

The cow learns AFTER touching the fence that it is electrified. Likewise, a human learns AFTER touching an electric fence that it is electrified and not to touch it again.

In the scenario with God, we humans have the ability to know that the fence is electrified

Since when? You yourself have said you have never touched an electric fence. There is no way to know the fence is switched on unless you touch it. Back in the 70s my dad always had to test the fence first at a low voltage. He had to touch it to ensure it was on. He even tricked me once to touch so that he wouldn't have to test it himself. Once was enough for me to never fall for that trick again even on a low voltage! A low voltage was all it took for me to learn. It didn't need to be turned way up high.

These days we have more modern equipment that can tell us the fence is on, but a kid playing in a field and going to climb a fence has no way to know the fence is on or not. I can remember numerous times looking at a fence and wondering if it was on and due to having been zapped before, being very careful about climbing the fence so as not to touch the potentially live wires.

We only know that fences can zap us once we have been educated about it. However the pain mechanism was created so that we WOULD learn.

and not experience any pain in the first place. We can be warned and instructed.

We CAN be. But this was not the case. Once upon a time, humans learnt the hard way by touching.

Cows cannot. This is part of the criteria that makes us superior to cows.

A cow learns not to touch the fence after it has been zapped once. Likewise, a small child that doesn’t understand your instruction not to touch an electric fence, quickly learns never to touch the electric fence again.

Still no malevolence here.

If the fence is turned up so high it kills the kid or seriously injures the kid, then yes, it is malevolence.

Just your desire to take a perspective to see malevolence and blame God. As you said, you take a perspective and then attempt to debate it.

I want God, if he is real, to be loving and caring, not malevolent. I conclude malevolence based on what was supposedly created. I don't seek out malevolence. This thread was made because I saw what looked like malevolence in nature.

This discussion is really going nowhere now. You can't see the malevolence. I can see it as plain as day.

It (amongst many other things) leads me to believe that there was no creation and what we have is a result of evolution. I just can't believe any god would be that cruel when he created the universe and the laws of nature. I would NOT want to believe that.

And who designed them to be aquophobic? Who knitted them together in their mother’s womb so that they would be aquophobic?

But regardless, you can’t turn up the wetness of water. Nor can you turn down the wetness of water. Unlike pain which can be turned up or down.

I think you have forgotten elementary science. Gas, Liquid or solid are descriptions describing the turning up or down of the wetness of water.

Then it ceases to be water.

Water as a liquid is wet. When the temperature is lowered, it becomes solid and is less wet.

It becomes ice. We don’t call it water then. When it melts then we call it water again, but the water is just as wet as it always was. Try playing in snow or ice and see how wet you get! As wet as you would it you had been having a water fight.

When water evaporates as gas it less wet.

When it evaporates it ceases to be water. It becomes Hydrogen and Oxygen. I think it’s you that needs a little lesson in elementary science! LMAO

We can control the wetness of water just like we can control the voltage of electricity.

No you can’t. It either becomes ice or it becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Water is just as wet no matter what you do to it.

God included a mechanism (human brain) to monitor and turn up or down the voltage/intensity.

Our brains to not control the intensity of electricity of fire.

You argue that your mechanism (mind) is slow and does not recognize when something is hot until it is too late.

This is a fact. It is not our hand that feels the heat. The message must get to our brain and it is our brain that registers whether it is hot. It is the brain that registers the pain.

If you walk by a stove element that is turned on, you claim you are not able to decipher whether it is hot without touching it first.

No, I never said that. I said if you touch it, there is a delay between you touching it and you feeling intense pain from it. That is why you can pick up a hot pan and have it in the air before you feel the agony.

If you place your hand near it, the signals will take too long to reach your brain before you realize it is hot.

I am not talking about placing my hand near the hot object. I am talking about grabbing the hot object. Once you have touched it, the intense pain sets in. If you can estimate your handling of it so you only just briefly touch it for a split second you can withdraw it quickly enough to avoid the agony. However that is only if you deliberately set out to test it.

This is not true for most people, especially those who cook regularly. But I cannot dismiss your experience.

Why do you think that when someone picks up say a hot pot handle that they can get it into the air before they let out a scream of pain and drop it? Because the pain does not register that quickly. You get that split second to pick it up before the pain registers because it takes a split second for the message to travel to your brain.

Oh come on! Are you serious? When you touch an element you have grabbed it before you even realise that there is heat there. By the time you feel the seering skin scorching heat you’ve already touched it firmly. It’s not a willful action. There is a delay before the brain realises there is pain.

If the element is already hot, I can feel the radiating heat before my hand reaches the
actual element. [/quote]

Only if you are deliberately looking for that heat. However when we pick up hot objects we are not normally testing first. Unless the object is radiating so much heat that you can feel it from a few feet away, you won’t notice it. When you pick up a pot say, you would not have enough time to register the radiating head unless you were specifically anticipating it.

The closer my hand gets to touching the element, the more heat I can feel.

Only if you are moving your hand very slowly, giving your brain enough time to register. This is not normally the case when one inadvertently grabs a hot object.

Neuroscience supports this claim.

Indeed. If you give your brain enough time to register the heat. When we accidentally pick up hot object that is not the case.

Thankfully, I have not every touched an electric fence.

Try it some time. You’ll see you that it doesn’t just come slowly giving you enough time to withdraw your hand. There is no radiating even if you move your hand slowly towards it. You may get lucky and touch it really quickly and touch it in between pulses. But that’s all.

Elements are not the same as an electric fence. They actually have a safety feature built in to glow red so a person can have a visible warning signal not to touch them. Even without this change in color, the radiating heat is the greatest primary warning.

When I have touched a pot and did not realize it was hot, I did experience pain, but I would not categorize it as agonizing.

Perhaps because it was not at such such a high heat or had a chance to cool a little.

It was sharp and intense, but the pain lasted a short time. I could place ice on it, and the pain was gone. Like the pain of a vaccination as a child.

Tell me. Let’s say the pain wasn’t as intense as what you felt, but it was still enough to give you a little sting. Would that be enough to warn you not to touch it again? Would you need another as equally painful experience to know not to try touching it?

Note that you still felt pain so no matter how fast the brain picks up on it, it was still too late to avoid that pain.

WHO IS TURNING UP THE VOLTAGE?

GOD OF COURSE! He is the one who determines how much pain these things inflict, whether your tolerance for pain is low or not.

Where do you find evidence to support this notion that God turned up the voltage.

I have already pointed out the creation story in Genesis, how God designed and made everything in 6 days. Thus he also created the laws of nature and how much pain would be inflicted by an element. The creation of humans who have varying tolerances to pain is something completely different again.

[KingandPriest]

God includes a mechanism within humans to control the voltage/intensity in the fence so the human does not feel severe pain.

No, this is wrong. The mechanism is not within the human. The mechanism is in the fence.

From your perspective, what is the fence that God has created?
Is the fence the ability to feel pain itself?
Is the fence electricity or fire?
Is the fence something which is created by man to inflict pain on another person?

Based on your farmer example, the farmer created a separate instrument (fence) to inflict a small amount of electric shock. The farmer is harnessing raw electrical current which is very dangerous and controlling the voltage through a control mechanism. What is your equivalent of a fence that God has created and turned up the voltage?

It is the fence that has been turned up high. The fence is turned up so the human DOES feel severe pain. The brain does not control the fence or the electricity running through it.

In the above scenario, the cow has no way of knowing in advance the fence is electrified.

The cow learns AFTER touching the fence that it is electrified. Likewise, a human learns AFTER touching an electric fence that it is electrified and not to touch it again.

Still do not see why you are blaming God because a human farmer created a fence that can inflict pain. In every instance of malevolence you provide, human influence is included. I still have yet to see you present a direct example of God (either from the bible or other example) turning up the voltage.

In the scenario with God, we humans have the ability to know that the fence is electrified

Since when? You yourself have said you have never touched an electric fence. There is no way to know the fence is switched on unless you touch it.

Humans have the ability to learn. Humans can be taught that something is dangerous without even ever having to experience pain. We can create signs to warn that the fence is electrified. Those who read the warning and heed the instruction will not experience the pain you suggest. Cows on the other hand cannot read, and do not instruct their offspring in a likewise manner as humans.

Do you claim humans do not have the ability to learn and know that a fence is electrified?

Back in the 70s my dad always had to test the fence first at a low voltage. He had to touch it to ensure it was on. He even tricked me once to touch so that he wouldn't have to test it himself. Once was enough for me to never fall for that trick again even on a low voltage! A low voltage was all it took for me to learn. It didn't need to be turned way up high.

Sounds like your dad was the malevolent one, and not God. Are you transferring potential anger away from your dad to God?

These days we have more modern equipment that can tell us the fence is on, but a kid playing in a field and going to climb a fence has no way to know the fence is on or not. I can remember numerous times looking at a fence and wondering if it was on and due to having been zapped before, being very careful about climbing the fence so as not to touch the potentially live wires.

We only know that fences can zap us once we have been educated about it. However the pain mechanism was created so that we WOULD learn.

So which is it, we can know a electric fence is dangerous or we cannot know? You seem to be arguing for both.

and not experience any pain in the first place. We can be warned and instructed.

We CAN be. But this was not the case. Once upon a time, humans learnt the hard way by touching.

Where is your evidence for this claim? Is this an assumption or do you have evidence to support this claim that the first humans (homo sapiens) only learned by touching.

Please provide supporting evidence to show that the first humans learned a fire could burn by touching and getting burned.
Please provide evidence that they were not taught by God, and learned the hard way.

And who designed them to be aquophobic? Who knitted them together in their mother’s womb so that they would be aquophobic?

But regardless, you can’t turn up the wetness of water. Nor can you turn down the wetness of water. Unlike pain which can be turned up or down.

I think you have forgotten elementary science. Gas, Liquid or solid are descriptions describing the turning up or down of the wetness of water.

Then it ceases to be water.

Still incorrect.

Water as a liquid is wet. When the temperature is lowered, it becomes solid and is less wet.

It becomes ice. We don’t call it water then. When it melts then we call it water again, but the water is just as wet as it always was. Try playing in snow or ice and see how wet you get! As wet as you would it you had been having a water fight.

Just because we dont call it water, does not mean it has changed into another substance. Water is H2O. When it freezes, the molecular structure changes but it is still water, still H2O. When it is boiled, it becomes water vapor. Still water just in another molecular form.

When water evaporates as gas it less wet.

When it evaporates it ceases to be water. It becomes Hydrogen and Oxygen. I think it’s you that needs a little lesson in elementary science! LMAO

Here are a few links to correct your misnomer. When water evaporates it does not become hydrogen and oxygen.

When the energy in specific molecules reaches a certain level, they can have a phase change.

Since that energy is transferred, one molecule will have a little bit more and the other will have a little bit less. With trillions of molecules bouncing around, sometimes individual molecules gain enough energy to break free. They build up enough power to become a gas once they reach a specific energy level. In a word, when the molecule leaves, it has evaporated.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_evap.html

The molecule is still an H2O molecule. The molecular structure of the molecule has not changed. No change in the convalescent bonds. The water particle when heated begins to vibrate. The more heat energy the more it moves. When water reaches 100 Degrees Celsius, the particles of the water have enough energy to move further apart, therefore turning into a gas.

http://www.seametrics.com/water-cycle-guide
http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/le ... r2/lesson2

We can control the wetness of water just like we can control the voltage of electricity.

No you can’t. It either becomes ice or it becomes hydrogen and oxygen. Water is just as wet no matter what you do to it.

By controlling temperature we have learned to control the wetness of water. We can boil water and force it to change state into a gas. If you place your hand over a pot of boiling water, the water will condense and you will have water droplets again. The water vapor is less wet because the density of the molecules are further apart. If you place your hand in a bowl of water, your whole hand will be wet. If you put your hand in water vapor, only some of your hand is wet. This is controlling the wetness of water.

Shame on your grade school science teacher.

God included a mechanism (human brain) to monitor and turn up or down the voltage/intensity.

Our brains to not control the intensity of electricity of fire.

We have the ability to monitor, control and turn up or down the intensity. We have the ability to control temperature around us by creating a fire or air conditioning. This is why humans have been able to spread and survive around the whole earth like no other species. Our brains include the power to do things no other species has been able to do.

Do you dispute the fact that humans have this ability? If so, please provide supporting evidence. (BTW, a hypothetical scenario is not evidence)

You argue that your mechanism (mind) is slow and does not recognize when something is hot until it is too late.

This is a fact. It is not our hand that feels the heat. The message must get to our brain and it is our brain that registers whether it is hot. It is the brain that registers the pain.

This is a fact. As presented above with actual evidence, our brains take about 0.1 - 0.6 miliseconds to the total time it would take you to feel pain and withdraw your hand. Max time of 2.6 miliseconds. This is still less than a fraction of a second.

Do you consider 2.6 miliseconds too slow?

In case you are not sure, 1 second is equal to 1000 miliseconds. So a delay of 2.6 miliseconds from the time you feel pain to when your brain registers the pain is too slow in your book?

You have conveniently ignored actual evidence presented to remain entrenched in your position that God is malevolent. Despite evidence to the contrary, you remain entrenched in your beliefs. Circular reasoning combined with confirmation bias is not a good thing.

If you place your hand near it, the signals will take too long to reach your brain before you realize it is hot.

I am not talking about placing my hand near the hot object. I am talking about grabbing the hot object. Once you have touched it, the intense pain sets in. If you can estimate your handling of it so you only just briefly touch it for a split second you can withdraw it quickly enough to avoid the agony. However that is only if you deliberately set out to test it.

How do you grab an object without placing your hand near it. As you reach to grab it, your hand gets near it. If the pan is hot enough you will feel the heat and pull your hand back. If the pan is not searing hot, you are correct in that you may touch it before realizing how hot it was. This touch will not result in a severe burn or agonizing pain. In fact, it will result in a similar level of pain as the cow would experience in your farming example. A pain that is unpleasant, but sufficient enough to form a cautionary reminder in the future.

Next time you go to the stove, you remember the pain and are more cautious.

This is not true for most people, especially those who cook regularly. But I cannot dismiss your experience.

Why do you think that when someone picks up say a hot pot handle that they can get it into the air before they let out a scream of pain and drop it? Because the pain does not register that quickly. You get that split second to pick it up before the pain registers because it takes a split second for the message to travel to your brain.

More like a fraction of a second. Even as you wrote in an earlier post, touching a fire or something hot for a fraction of a second will not cause a severe burn. You even claimed that this type of scenario is not what you were talking about. I remind you:

Oh come on. You can hardly compare a quick whisk of your hand across a candle flame to say that of a well burning fire. 1 second of holding your hand on a flame is enough to feel agonising seering pain.

See what happens if you hold your hand over the flame for a second rather than less than a second. See what happens if you try to run your hand through a large fire.

Playing a game like trying to whisk your hand over a candle flame is hardly relevant to what I’m talking about here.

As I have shown above, it only takes a fraction of a second, at 2.6 miliseconds at most for pain to register. If you keep your hand in a flame longer than this, it is a result of choice. Either you have decided to inflict pain on yourself or onto someone else.

Oh come on! Are you serious? When you touch an element you have grabbed it before you even realise that there is heat there. By the time you feel the seering skin scorching heat you’ve already touched it firmly. It’s not a willful action. There is a delay before the brain realises there is pain.

If the element is already hot, I can feel the radiating heat before my hand reaches the
actual element.

Lastly, you have not presented evidence that God turned up the voltage. You have taken the perspective that if the Genesis account is true, then "God designed and made everything in 6 days. Thus he also created the laws of nature and how much pain would be inflicted by an element." Your words explain the creation of raw elements such as fire, electrical current, sharp objects that can cut, etc. You have not explained how you arrive at the conclusion that these raw elements equate to the fence in your farming example.

Again I ask

You have not demonstrated how God creating humans and forces like fire or electricity are similar to an electric fence.

In your example, the farmer created the fence to protect or keep the cows in a specific area. How is God creating fire or electricity similar. The fence is distinct and separate from electricity. The fence is electrified with raw power, and then the voltage is controlled. Where is the parallel in your example of malevolence?

Is the pain from a burn a fence?

You have taken a perspective for the sake of argument that God created humans, pain and devices to inflict pain. What is the fence in your perspective? Where is the basis of this perspective?

Did you just make it up, or is it based on actual scripture?

[OnceConvinced]

God includes a mechanism within humans to control the voltage/intensity in the fence so the human does not feel severe pain.

No, this is wrong. The mechanism is not within the human. The mechanism is in the fence.

From your perspective, what is the fence that God has created?

Anything that inflicts varying degrees of pain.

Is the fence the ability to feel pain itself?

Of course not. Fire can’t feel pain. Nor can electricity.

Is the fence electricity or fire?

It is anything that inflicts pain.

Is the fence something which is created by man to inflict pain on another person?

Of course not. Fire and electrity are natural phenomena.

Based on your farmer example, the farmer created a separate instrument (fence) to inflict a small amount of electric shock. The farmer is harnessing raw electrical current which is very dangerous and controlling the voltage through a control mechanism. What is your equivalent of a fence that God has created and turned up the voltage?

I am referring to the raw electric current.

Still do not see why you are blaming God because a human farmer created a fence that can inflict pain. In every instance of malevolence you provide, human influence is included. I still have yet to see you present a direct example of God (either from the bible or other example) turning up the voltage.

It is the electricity which inflicts the pain. The electrify can be turned up or down. Think of a lightning bolt. Think about how much pain that inflicts.

In the scenario with God, we humans have the ability to know that the fence is electrified

Since when? You yourself have said you have never touched an electric fence. There is no way to know the fence is switched on unless you touch it.

Humans have the ability to learn. Humans can be taught that something is dangerous without even ever having to experience pain. We can create signs to warn that the fence is electrified. Those who read the warning and heed the instruction will not experience the pain you suggest. Cows on the other hand cannot read, and do not instruct their offspring in a likewise manner as humans.

Do you claim humans do not have the ability to learn and know that a fence is electrified?

Of course we can, but this is all irrelevant. It’s the pain that is inflicted that I am talking about here. It does not need to be as intense as it is.

Sounds like your dad was the malevolent one, and not God. Are you transferring potential anger away from your dad to God?

My dad didn’t create electricity, nor did he determine it was going to cause agonising pain for any human who comes into contact with it.

You are trying to focus too much on the side of the human creation too much. It is not the human creation that is the issue here. It’s the raw electricity which causes agonising pain if humans come into contact with it.

I used the electric fence analogy to illustrate how the intensity of electricity (and thus the pain inflicted) can be turned up or down. AND to show that a lower voltage can achieve the same ends as a higher voltage. Any being that would choose a greater amount of pain over a smaller amount of pain would be considered malevolent.

Just because we dont call it water, does not mean it has changed into another substance. Water is H2O. When it freezes, the molecular structure changes but it is still water, still H2O. When it is boiled, it becomes water vapor. Still water just in another molecular form.

And still just as wet. Like I said, you play with ice or snow and see how wet you get. You let some water vapor hit you and see how wet you get. The wetness is still the same.

By controlling temperature we have learned to control the wetness of water.

Nope, all you are doing is controlling the density of it, not the wetness of it. A bucket of water thrown over us may get us wetter than a cup of water thrown over us, but the water isn't any more or less wet.

But it’s all completely irrelevant. The wetness or water does not cause us physical pain.

Now can we do away with the flimsy strawman you tried to build here?

We can boil water and force it to change state into a gas. If you place your hand over a pot of boiling water, the water will condense and you will have water droplets again. The water vapor is less wet because the density of the molecules are further apart. If you place your hand in a bowl of water, your whole hand will be wet. If you put your hand in water vapor, only some of your hand is wet. This is controlling the wetness of water.

It’s not any less wet. It’s just that it’s not as dense.

God included a mechanism (human brain) to monitor and turn up or down the voltage/intensity.

Our brains to not control the intensity of electricity of fire.

We have the ability to monitor, control and turn up or down the intensity. We have the ability to control temperature around us by creating a fire or air conditioning. This is why humans have been able to spread and survive around the whole earth like no other species. Our brains include the power to do things no other species has been able to do.

No, your brain does not control the heat of the fire or the voltage of the electricity.

I am not arguing that we as humans cannot gain tolerance for pain. I am not arguing that some of us have a higher threshold for pain than others. However all that is irrelevant. I am talking only of the strength of the element that causes the pain.

Do you dispute the fact that humans have this ability? If so, please provide supporting evidence. (BTW, a hypothetical scenario is not evidence)

We as humans do not have some kind of magical mind power to change temperatures or voltages. If you believe we do then it’s up to you to provide that evidence.

As I have shown above, it only takes a fraction of a second, at 2.6 miliseconds at most for pain to register. If you keep your hand in a flame longer than this, it is a result of choice. Either you have decided to inflict pain on yourself or onto someone else.

And it only takes a fraction of a second to pick up that pot.

Lastly, you have not presented evidence that God turned up the voltage.

Who else determines the heat of a flame? Who else determines the voltage of say a lightening bolt?

Thus he also created the laws of nature and how much pain would be inflicted by an element." Your words explain the creation of raw elements such as fire, electrical current, sharp objects that can cut, etc.

Yes. I’m glad you’ve finally realised that.

You have not explained how you arrive at the conclusion that these raw elements equate to the fence in your farming example.

The fence was an analogy. Perhaps to make things simpler for you we should just talk about lightning bolts? Why did God create lightning bolts so powerful that they can kill you?

Again I ask

You have not demonstrated how God creating humans and forces like fire or electricity are similar to an electric fence.

In your example, the farmer created the fence to protect or keep the cows in a specific area. How is God creating fire or electricity similar. The fence is distinct and separate from electricity. The fence is electrified with raw power, and then the voltage is controlled. Where is the parallel in your example of malevolence?

Is the pain from a burn a fence?

The pain is from the jolt of electricity which can be varying degrees of intenseness. The pain comes from the RAW POWER.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 44 by OnceConvinced]

From your perspective, what is the fence that God has created?

Anything that inflicts varying degrees of pain.

Ok, now we arrive at the point where you analogy falls apart. Electricity or fire are raw elements. These are not fences designed to protect or confine humanity. The fence is a separate system designed to make use of raw power. The mechanism to turn up or down voltage is in the fence.

Where is your supporting evidence that raw elements are supposed to act like a fence. The bible makes no such claim. Additionally, raw elements do not inflict pain. These elements may be the cause of a persons pain if they come into contact with raw electrical current or a fire, but these do not inflict pain. To inflict requires a willful act. Do you think raw elements like lightning or fire have a mind and consciously inflict pain on a person. A gun or bullet does not inflict pain on its own. It takes another person wielding said object to inflict pain.

Raw elements can be the source of pain, but they do not inflict pain. In every applicable use of the word inflict, you will always see intent or conscious decisions. A dog can inflict pain by biting a human. Poison ivy cannot inflict pain. We use the word inflict to describe decisions.

If you want to say the pain raw electricity or fire can cause is too intense, then you ignore the purpose of the creation of these raw forces. Electricity was not created to be a fence. Fire was not created to be a fence.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that anything that inflicts pain was created with the purpose of being a fence.

Is the fence the ability to feel pain itself?

Of course not. Fire can’t feel pain. Nor can electricity.

Even in your OP you state

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

Your own words show that the protective mechanism, was the ability to feel pain, which represented the fence. Now you assert that anything that inflicts pain is the fence. Which is it?

Do I stick with your assertions in the OP or your flip flop assertions?

It is the electricity which inflicts the pain. The electrify can be turned up or down. Think of a lightning bolt. Think about how much pain that inflicts.

Thought about it. A lightning bolt can cause an immense amount of pain. This could be deemed too much pain if you can prove that a lightning bolt was created for the purpose of protection, or acting as a fence.

Does the bible support this notion that forces like electricity or fire were created as a protective mechanism.

My dad didn’t create electricity, nor did he determine it was going to cause agonising pain for any human who comes into contact with it.

You are trying to focus too much on the side of the human creation too much. It is not the human creation that is the issue here. It’s the raw electricity which causes agonising pain if humans come into contact with it.

I used the electric fence analogy to illustrate how the intensity of electricity (and thus the pain inflicted) can be turned up or down. AND to show that a lower voltage can achieve the same ends as a higher voltage. Any being that would choose a greater amount of pain over a smaller amount of pain would be considered malevolent.

Turning down the voltage works when you change the purpose of raw electricity. If you change the purpose to safeguard some animals, then you are correct; the current from raw electricity is more than sufficient for an electric fence.

If you change the purpose however and desire to power a stove, you need to turn up the current.

What you have not done is demonstrate that the purpose of raw forces like electricity are designed to act like a fence. You call it a fence, but have not proven that God designed it this way.

Is this just a perspective you have taken, or one based on actual scripture. Does the account in Genesis or any other biblical text state why raw forces like electricity were created?

And still just as wet. Like I said, you play with ice or snow and see how wet you get. You let some water vapor hit you and see how wet you get. The wetness is still the same.
Nope, all you are doing is controlling the density of it, not the wetness of it. A bucket of water thrown over us may get us wetter than a cup of water thrown over us, but the water isn't any more or less wet.

Sorry, incorrect again. When a person is measures the wetness of an object they are measuring how moist (density of water molecules) it is.

Both of the articles below describe measuring the wetness of an object:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisture_analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896722/

Now can we do away with the flimsy strawman you tried to build here?

Not yet. The validity of this question is vital to your question of why did God make pain so painful. If the question, why did God make water so wet is invalid, then your question is also invalidated for the same reason. To question why an object does not violate its definition is illogical.

Failure to admit this will leave you spinning in circles. By comparing your OP to your most recent claim that anything that inflicts varying degrees of pain is the fence created by God, you are inconsistent. This inconsistency allows you to make leaps in logic and many assumptions.

No, your brain does not control the heat of the fire or the voltage of the electricity.

I am not arguing that we as humans cannot gain tolerance for pain. I am not arguing that some of us have a higher threshold for pain than others. However all that is irrelevant. I am talking only of the strength of the element that causes the pain.

What I argue is that we have learned how to control the intensity of a fire or electricity. If a fire is too hot, we have learned to turn it down by removing the fuel of the fire, if possible.

Humans learned to control fire thousands of years ago. Electricity is a more recent discovery. You state you are talking only of the strength of the element that causes the pain. Have you provided evidence that the strength of elements are too much for their intended purpose.

Does the bible even tell us what the purpose of raw elements like fire or electricity are?

Are we to just follow your assumptions that these were designed as a fence?
If so, a fence from what?

We as humans do not have some kind of magical mind power to change temperatures or voltages. If you believe we do then it’s up to you to provide that evidence.

I guess my ability to change the temperature of my AC unit or change the setting of my electric stove is not real.

Or my ability to snuff out a camp fire by placing dirt on it, must be magical.
We can mitigate danger of raw elements.

And it only takes a fraction of a second to pick up that pot.

Earlier you wrote you were not talking about momentary grasping of a hot pot or a momentary touch of a flame. Now you are.

Even with a momentary touch for a fraction of a second, more likely than not, it will not result in severe or agonizing pain. The pain will be intense but more than likely brief. Just like getting a shot at the doctors office.

Sometimes a burn can occur. The pain of the burn can be mitigated with appropriate treatment right away. Even a cow can get a small burn with the voltage set to a low setting.

Who else determines the heat of a flame? Who else determines the voltage of say a lightening bolt?

Determining the heat of a flame or voltage of lightning is consistent with its purpose. Have you demonstrated the purpose of a flame or lightning?

You have not explained how you arrive at the conclusion that these raw elements equate to the fence in your farming example.

The fence was an analogy. Perhaps to make things simpler for you we should just talk about lightning bolts.
Why did God create lightning bolts so powerful that they can kill you?

No you arrive at the proper question. Any answers given would be pure speculation because we are not told why.

The best answer I can give is that lightning is one of the best ways to make the element Nitrogen useful for our human bodies. The immense power of lightning actually produces chemical reactions that turn Nitrogen into Nitrate (NO3).

A lightning stroke provides a good example of purpose in nature. Lightning may frighten us, but it also serves an important function: It helps provide our daily need of the element nitrogen. Nitrogen is the third most abundant element in the human body, and it must be renewed continually. We are actually surrounded by nitrogen, since it comprises 78 percent of Earth’s atmosphere. However, we cannot use the nitrogen in this molecular, gaseous form; nitrogen gas has a strong covalent bond that our bodies cannot break down.

There are two major ways in which nitrogen becomes part of vegetation. First, certain plants are able to absorb or “fix� nitrogen through their root systems. These plants are called legumes and include clover and peas. Legumes are distinguished by nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live inside their root nodules. These bacteria change the N2 form of atmospheric nitrogen into nitrate, NO3 : N2 + 3O2 ---> 2NO3 In the nitrate, form the legumes, as well as other plants, can utilize the needed nitrogen. Through a diet that includes either these plants directly or the products from grazing animals we make the nitrogen available to our bodies.

The second major way by which nitrogen is transformed into a usable form is by lightning. The great electrical energy of lightning is easily able to convert N2 to NO3. The magnitude of this lightning transformation process is remarkable. Worldwide, storms are estimated to produce one hundred million tons of useful nitrogen compounds each year. Recent studies indicate that up to one-half of all usable nitrogen in the soil is fixed or made usable by the energy of lightning.

Read more at: http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/li ... efits.html

If the voltage of lightening was lowered this process could not occur and the Nitrate we need to survive would not be as abundant on the earth.

Yes lightening is powerful enough to kill a person, but it is also powerful enough to give us the abundance of nitrate we need to survive.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 44 by OnceConvinced]

From your perspective, what is the fence that God has created?

Anything that inflicts varying degrees of pain.

Ok, now we arrive at the point where you analogy falls apart. Electricity or fire are raw elements. These are not fences designed to protect or confine humanity. The fence is a separate system designed to make use of raw power. The mechanism to turn up or down voltage is in the fence.

You are not getting it. Never mind.

Raw elements can be the source of pain, but they do not inflict pain.

Burning fire doesn’t inflict pain? Whatever you say, KingandPriest, whatever you say.

If you want to say the pain raw electricity or fire can cause is too intense, then you ignore the purpose of the creation of these raw forces. Electricity was not created to be a fence. Fire was not created to be a fence.

The purpose is completely irrelevant. They have a purpose, but they were also designed to inflict pain if they came into contact with humans.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that anything that inflicts pain was created with the purpose of being a fence.

You have misunderstood the point of my analogy.

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

Your own words show that the protective mechanism, was the ability to feel pain, which represented the fence. Now you assert that anything that inflicts pain is the fence. Which is it?

Nope you have misconstrued my argument. But enough.

It is the electricity which inflicts the pain. The electrify can be turned up or down. Think of a lightning bolt. Think about how much pain that inflicts.

Thought about it. A lightning bolt can cause an immense amount of pain. This could be deemed too much pain if you can prove that a lightning bolt was created for the purpose of protection, or acting as a fence.

Does it need to inflict any pain at all?

If you change the purpose however and desire to power a stove, you need to turn up the current.

Does the pain need to be turned up at the same time though? If we use your analogy of water and its wetness, we can turn the wetness of water up without inflicting any pain.

What you have not done is demonstrate that the purpose of raw forces like electricity are designed to act like a fence. You call it a fence, but have not proven that God designed it this way.

That’s because I never made that comparison. You have completely missed the point of my analogy.

Both of the articles below describe measuring the wetness of an object:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisture_analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896722/

We are not talking about the wetness of an object. We are talking about the wetness of water.

Seriously drop the whole water argument. It is a strawman anyway. Wet does not cause pain. It’s a completely invalid comparison.

What I argue is that we have learned how to control the intensity of a fire or electricity. If a fire is too hot, we have learned to turn it down by removing the fuel of the fire, if possible.

Completely irrelevant what we do or do not do to change the temperature or voltage of something. The fire and electricity are designed in a way to cause massive pain when they come into contact with us.

Who else determines the heat of a flame? Who else determines the voltage of say a lightening bolt?

Determining the heat of a flame or voltage of lightning is consistent with its purpose.

Does the pain have to increase along with the heat or the voltage?

Have you demonstrated the purpose of a flame or lightning?

The purpose is irrelevant. What I am trying to get you to focus on is the unnecessary suffering that comes from these things when they come into contact with humans. Would you create something in a child’s play room that would inflict pain on them?

No you arrive at the proper question. Any answers given would be pure speculation because we are not told why.

So we could have avoided this entire debate if you had just admitted that you don’t know why things like electricity and fire are so painful. You don’t know why God made them inflict so much pain on us.

The best answer I can give is that lightning is one of the best ways to make the element Nitrogen useful for our human bodies. The immense power of lightning actually produces chemical reactions that turn Nitrogen into Nitrate (NO3).

The purpose is irrelevant. All I am asking is why all the suffering inflicted upon us? Don’t you think that God could have created things like fire and electricity without having to make them so agonising if they touch us?

Yes lightening is powerful enough to kill a person, but it is also powerful enough to give us the abundance of nitrate we need to survive.

And you don’t think that God could have created lightening in a way to achieve all the good stuff without making it lethal too? Why make it lethal to us?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 46 by OnceConvinced]

How is purpose irrelevant? The basis of your question is why is it so painful? This is asking a question about the design. You find the design malevolent because you presume that the design is flawed because it did not require that much power or ability to cause pain.

Burning fire doesn’t inflict pain? Whatever you say, KingandPriest, whatever you say.

Does it need to inflict any pain at all?

Can an inanimate object inflict pain of its own accord. Can a flame from a candle inflict pain?

No. To inflict pain upon someone requires a will. To inflict is a willful action.

It can be said accurately that a flame is the source or cause of pain, but to inflict requires a willful action.

You are not getting it. Never mind.

The purpose is completely irrelevant. They have a purpose, but they were also designed to inflict pain if they came into contact with humans.

You have misunderstood the point of my analogy.

You write the purpose is irrelevant. Then you make up a new purpose by saying they were designed to inflict pain if they came into contact with humans. Which is it, are we going to discuss the design or not.

If I design a car for the purpose of getting you from point A to point B, how do you conclude that I designed the car to inflict pain if someone gets into a car accident. Even a car with all the safety features in the world can kill a person if it traveling at high speeds. The car was designed for a purpose. What does that purpose have to do with the possibility that a person could be hurt if they are hit by a car?

If you ignore the purpose of why something was created, you ignore the very answer you seek.

Does it need to inflict any pain at all?

You insist that raw elements or inanimate objects can inflict pain. Can a hot pot on the stove inflict pain? If so, how?

Does the pot leap into your hand and inflict pain to your hand?

The word inflict is an active verb

from Latin inflictus, past participle of infligere "to strike or dash against; inflict," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + fligere (past participle flictus) "to dash, strike" (see afflict). You inflict trouble on someone; you afflict someone with trouble. Shame on you.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inflict

Your usage of the word does not match its definition or etymology. The word inflict is always used in conjunction with the being that is causing the action.

Things like lightning do not inflict pain. Only things with an ability to make decisions can inflict pain.

Even so, your question of does it need to inflict pain is a question about the purpose of the thing which may cause pain. Does raw electricity need to cause pain? Yes, the voltage required to turn N2 into NO3 is high, and can cause pain to humans. Does fire need to be so hot it can cause burns? Yes, if you want to be able to boil water and kill pathogens which may be in the water or food. It also needs to be hot enough to emit radiant heat to keep a person warm. Fires with low heat cannot warm a person throughout a cold night.

Does the pain need to be turned up at the same time though?

It needs to be "turned up" to accomplish its purpose. If the purpose of lightening was only to act as a fence, then your analogy would work and prove it is turned up too high. It is because we can see and experience in nature that this is not the purpose as to why these raw elements were created.

That’s because I never made that comparison. You have completely missed the point of my analogy.

This is because your analogy ignores its own point. You ask a question of why and does it need to be that painful?
Then when a answer to your question is presented as to why it is so painful, or why it needs to be painful, you proclaim that is not what you wanted to know.

You ask a question, and when the answer does not fit what you desire you change the question. Its like asking why is the sun hot. When you are given an answer that does not comply with a broken analogy, you proclaim that is not what you wanted to know.

Please present you actual questions since I missed the point of your analogy.
Do you want to know why pain is so painful?
Do you want to know does the pain need to be turned up so high?

The fire and electricity are designed in a way to cause massive pain when they come into contact with us.

When you speak of the design of raw elements like fire or electricity, are you open to discussing the purpose and design of these elements?

Are we to take you at your word to be correct in your claim that they were destined in a way to cause pain. This is a claim you have made often, but have failed to prove. You have yet to prove that electricity was designed to cause pain to humans. All you have shown is that they can cause pain. You have not proven that they were designed to cause pain. Even the most safety equipped vehicle can cause pain to a pedestrian who is hit by a car. Does this mean the car was designed to hurt pedestrians?

What I am trying to get you to focus on is the unnecessary suffering that comes from these things when they come into contact with humans. Would you create something in a child’s play room that would inflict pain on them?

Considering that a child can take the most mundane object and make it a toy or a weapon, that is hard to say. Even a toy that seems safe can become dangerous if the child is unsupervised.

Once again, inanimate objects cannot inflict pain on their own.

And you don’t think that God could have created lightening in a way to achieve all the good stuff without making it lethal too? Why make it lethal to us?

Now you are into speculation. You are asking me to debate your fanciful imagination of what lightning can or cant do.

Lets say we play your game. For lightening to achieve its purpose and humans feel pain, we would need to be composed of a great deal more conductive materials such as copper or aluminum. This would result in complications with fire, because copper and aluminum both have a lower melting point than the calcination point of human bones.

The human body is a suited to all elements rather than just one. You have not presented any support for your claim of malevolence. You claim God could have or should have created lightning another way. Would this thing be lightening or just a light show.

Despite all the actual evidence I have presented, you chose to remain in the dark in your made up analogy. No supporting evidence has been given to substantiate your claims, except your opinion. Yet you require readers to see that God designed raw elements with too much power even if the power is what was needed to accomplish the purpose it was originally created for.

[OnceConvinced]

Can an inanimate object inflict pain of its own accord. Can a flame from a candle inflict pain?

A flame inflicts pain. So does a bolt of electricity. Let’s just stick with the flame and the bolt of electricity. What caused it or the power of it is irrelevant.

Let’s say there is a lightening bolt. It is so powerful and it hits you. You suffer a great deal of pain. Now why couldn’t it have been designed in a way that it delivers the same power, but inflicts the same amount of pain as say a jolt of static electricity?

No. To inflict pain upon someone requires a will. To inflict is a willful action.

Yes, the will of the designer. So if God designed a jolt of powerful electricity to inflict huge amounts of pain on us then it’s his will that it does. That is malevolence.

You write the purpose is irrelevant. Then you make up a new purpose by saying they were designed to inflict pain if they came into contact with humans. Which is it, are we going to discuss the design or not.

If an element was designed to inflict huge amounts of pain in the process of performing its task, then that is the issue I have here. It matters not what the original purpose of the element was.

If I design a car for the purpose of getting you from point A to point B, how do you conclude that I designed the car to inflict pain if someone gets into a car accident.

Bad analogy. Doesn’t remotely line up with the pain inflicted on us by so called intelligent design.

A better analogy would be, a car is designed so that if you leave your lights on and you open the door of the car, it lets out a little siren to warn you that your lights are on. However the designer, instead of having a little alarm that alerts you, designs the car so that if you try to open the door, horrible pain is inflicted upon you.

There we have a more accurate analogy. This is the same thing we have with the warning of a hot flame. Agonising pain once you touch it rather than just a little sting.

Even so, your question of does it need to inflict pain is a question about the purpose of the thing which may cause pain. Does raw electricity need to cause pain? Yes, the voltage required to turn N2 into NO3 is high, and can cause pain to humans.

No, it does not need to cause pain. It was DESIGNED to cause pain. Otherwise why would it cause pain? Did God unwittingly create these things completely ignorant to the fact they would cause us suffering?

Don’t you think a God could design electricity in a way where it doesn’t cause pain? He created water so that it doesn’t cause pain no matter how wet it is. Those damn water molecules. They vary in wetness, don’t they? At least according to you. But do they vary in how much pain they deliver? No. In fact, the wetness of water inflicts no pain at all. Why could the same not be true for electricity or fire?

Why could God not have designed things in a way where electricity did not hurt humans? There are some things it has no effect on at all. But for humans, we feel it.

Does fire need to be so hot it can cause burns? Yes,

Sure it can be designed to cause burns. But does it need to be so agonising?

if you want to be able to boil water and kill pathogens which may be in the water or food. It also needs to be hot enough to emit radiant heat to keep a person warm. Fires with low heat cannot warm a person throughout a cold night.

But why does it have to cause pain? Why can’t it perform those other tasks without having to be a danger to us? Was God not able to come up with something better? Something that wasn’t so dangerous to humans?

That’s because I never made that comparison. You have completely missed the point of my analogy.

This is because your analogy ignores its own point. You ask a question of why and does it need to be that painful?
Then when a answer to your question is presented as to why it is so painful, or why it needs to be painful, you proclaim that is not what you wanted to know.

But you aren’t giving reasons why it has to be so painful. You’re just giving reasons about why it needs to be in the state it is to accomplish what it needs to do. Can’t it be designed to do those same things without inflicting suffering? Wouldn’t you… if you were a creator… want to create things in a way that avoids potential suffering? I know I would. Surely I’m not more caring than God?

You ask a question, and when the answer does not fit what you desire you change the question.

No the question has never been changed. In fact I keep having to ask it time and time again. Why does pain have to be inflicted? Why so much?

Its like asking why is the sun hot. When you are given an answer that does not comply with a broken analogy, you proclaim that is not what you wanted to know.

Never have I asked why fire is so hot. I have asked why it causes so much pain.

What I am trying to get you to focus on is the unnecessary suffering that comes from these things when they come into contact with humans. Would you create something in a child’s play room that would inflict pain on them?

Considering that a child can take the most mundane object and make it a toy or a weapon, that is hard to say. Even a toy that seems safe can become dangerous if the child is unsupervised.

Ok, so a parent places an object that is electrified in the play area. They don’t have to take any responsibility for that?

Once again, inanimate objects cannot inflict pain on their own.

I have not mentioned anything about inanimate objects. Flames are not inanimate. Nor is electrical current.

And you don’t think that God could have created lightening in a way to achieve all the good stuff without making it lethal too? Why make it lethal to us?

Now you are into speculation. You are asking me to debate your fanciful imagination of what lightning can or cant do.

Err no. You are the one trying to justify pain by going on about what these things do. All I am interested in is the pain that these things inflict on us.

Lets say we play your game. For lightening to achieve its purpose and humans feel pain, we would need to be composed of a great deal more conductive materials such as copper or aluminum.

Why could God not have made flesh conductive? Or why could he have not made electricity so that it did not cause us pain if it went through us? You are restricting your imagination to what we have here now. Did it need to be this way?

The human body is a suited to all elements rather than just one. You have not presented any support for your claim of malevolence.

I have shown you again and again how it’s malevolent. You’re just refusing to see how it’s malevolent. If this is the way its designed, then God designed it so that suffering would occur. I don’t see how you can see it any other way.

You claim God could have or should have created lightning another way. Would this thing be lightening or just a light show.

It could be whatever God wants it to be. Are you saying that God would be incapable of coming up with a less sadistic plan?

Despite all the actual evidence I have presented,

Which has been supplied for the strawmen you have erected.

you chose to remain in the dark in your made up analogy.

How is a lightning bolt a made up analogy? It’s not an analogy at all.

As for the electric fence one, I stopped using that one because you didn't seem to be getting it.

No supporting evidence has been given to substantiate your claims, except your opinion.

I have given you logical arguments. I’ll ask again. Why was God not able to come up with a system that didn’t involve suffering? Why did he not design things in a way where such pain would not be inflicted?

I have nothing to prove here. We can see the malevolence in this world right now. It’s there as plain as day. If a God really did create this mess, then he chose pain and suffering as part of the design plan. The pain and suffering is there. It’s obvious for all to see.

Yet you require readers to see that God designed raw elements with too much power even if the power is what was needed to accomplish the purpose it was originally created for.

See, you’re not getting it. Not once did I claim that God designed things with too much power. I said he designed things that inflict too much pain. Great power could surely be exerted without the need for pain? Surely?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 48 by OnceConvinced]

Is being hit by a moving car extremely painful?
Is being hit by a lightening bolt extremely painful?

Why is it wrong to compare the purpose of the design of a car to the design of a bolt of lightening?

You create a scenario about leaving the light on in your car creating a warning alarm or harming the driver. I ask you to provide a similar example in nature of something that was designed with the purpose of keeping humans safe, intentionally causing pain.

It has been shown that the purpose of lightening is not to "warn" that a persons lights were left on.

When a person designes a car, are you saying they willfully designed it to harm people because they knew somewhere along the road, someone will get into an accident. After all, the car designers perform crash tests on the vehicle.

If a pedestrian gets hit by a car, is it your claim that the designer inflicted pain because they designed a car that could possible cause pain?

You still have not answered the question as to whether or not you want to discuss the design of raw elements. You make assertions that they were designed to inflict pain. I disagree. Am I just supposed to take your opinion and ignore the facts?

I have also asked whether you have a problem with the ability of humans to be able to feel pain. IN prior posts you said no, now you write:

Why could God not have designed things in a way where electricity did not hurt humans?

But why does it have to cause pain?

So now you are asking why do humans have to feel pain? You are asking why cant a human get hit by lightening and not feel pain. Why cant we just conduct the electricity and feel nothing.

I have already shown that if humans do not feel pain, they will engage in risky behavior and lead to death. Just look at the numerous cases of individuals who are born without the ability to feel pain. If these people were hit by a bolt of lightning, they would not feel pain, but they could still die as a result. Feeling pain is not a bad thing. You have not proven that feeling pain is bad.

[OnceConvinced]

Why is it wrong to compare the purpose of the design of a car to the design of a bolt of lightening?

Your analogy just did not line up with a nature example. My example better lines up with that. In fact I was thinking of a better use of that analogy last night. That being that the designer creates the alarm to be so ear piercing loud that it causes agonising pain to the driver's ear drum.

You create a scenario about leaving the light on in your car creating a warning alarm or harming the driver. I ask you to provide a similar example in nature of something that was designed with the purpose of keeping humans safe, intentionally causing pain.

Those were the examples I gave at the beginning of this very thread. Read the opening post where I talk about pain as being used as a warning system.

So here we are, having gone full circle, right back at the example I used in my opening post. The whole argument of how pain say from a flame acts as a warning to us not to continue to handle the flame unless serious damage is done to us.

However with my argument I have been making all along there is no need for agonising pain when just a little will do.

So with the case of an alarm in your car it certainly does not need to be so ear piercing that it causes pain to your ear drums. All it needs to be is loud enough to warn you to turn off your lights. The same goes to anything that causes pain like flames or electricity.

I'm sorry, but this has all become way too repetitious for me now. I feel like we are going around in circles.

My stance remains that pain does not need to be so unbearable. It just doesn't. For a creator to design things in a way where such intense suffering is possible shows to me clear malevolent design. Or at the very least ignorant and incompetent design.

I have already shown that if humans do not feel pain, they will engage in risky behavior and lead to death. Just look at the numerous cases of individuals who are born without the ability to feel pain. If these people were hit by a bolt of lightning, they would not feel pain, but they could still die as a result. Feeling pain is not a bad thing. You have not proven that feeling pain is bad.

And here we are back at my original argument about warning systems to avoid risky behaviour. And like I have kept telling you time and time again, there is no need for extreme pain when minor pain will do the trick. I even indicated in my opening post that pain WAS good. Just not high degrees of it.

The problem becomes trying to justify this so called intelligent-design. You just can't do it unless you make God out to be ignorant, incompetent or malevolent. With a so-called creator we get discussions like this one, which has now gone on for 5 pages and nearly a month. If we were to just acknowledge that pain and suffering is a result of evolution, then there would be no further debate. There would be no need to try to justify evolution. Evolution is not malevolent. It is just the way things turned out.